Network Analysis of the Shanghai Stock Exchange Based on Partial Mutual Information
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing social systems, particularly financial markets, using a complex network approach has become one of the most popular fields within econophysics. A similar trend is currently appearing within the econometrics and finance communities, as well. In this study, we present a state-of-the-artmethod for analyzing the structure and risk within stockmarkets, treating them as complex networks using model-free, nonlinear dependency measures based on information theory. This study is the first network analysis of the stockmarket in Shanghai using a nonlinear network methodology. Further, it is often assumed that markets outside the United States and Western Europe are inherently riskier. We find that the Chinese stock market is not structurally risky, contradicting this popular opinion. We use partial mutual information to create filtered networks representing the Shanghai stock exchange, comparing them to networks based on Pearson’s correlation. Consequently, we discuss the structure and characteristics of both the presented methods and the Shanghai stock exchange. This paper provides an insight into the cutting edge methodology designed for analyzing complex financial networks, as well as analyzing the structure of the market in Shanghai and, as such, is of interest to both researchers and financial analysts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it